On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Rick Smith at Secure Computing wrote:
> There are probably enough "cryptography researchers" out there that even a
> large vendor won't feel tempted to harass them all proactively.
All they have to do is make a messy example out of one or two. (It also
helps if you can get
At 01:13 PM 7/27/2001, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>It's certainly not broad enough -- it protects "encryption" research,
>and the definition of "encryption" in the law is meant to cover just
>that, not "cryptography". And the good-faith effort to get permission
>is really an invitation to harrass
On Friday 27 July 2001 11:13, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Declan McCullagh writes:
> >One of those -- and you can thank groups like ACM for this, if my
> >legislative memory is correct -- explicitly permits encryption
> >research. You can argue fairly persuasively t
> Much of the hysteria regarding the DMCA's supposed ability to quash free
> speech by cryptographic researchers is being whipped up by opponents
> to the DMCA who are misrepresenting the DMCA in a calculated fashion in
> order to promote opposition.
The anonymous poster's legal analysis was not
Arnold Reinhold writes:
> If you read the language carefully, you will see that 1201g only
> permits *circumvention* as part of cryptographic research (and then
> only under limited circumstances). There is nothing in the law that
> allows publication of results.
Not true. Look closely at
ht
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 06:36:53PM -0400, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
[..]
>
> If you read the language carefully, you will see that 1201g only
> permits *circumvention* as part of cryptographic research (and then
> only under limited circumstances). There is nothing in the law that
> allows pu
At 1:56 AM -0400 7/27/2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 10:53:02PM -0400, David Jablon wrote:
>> With these great new laws, there is no longer any risk of being legally
>> criticised for using even the most glaringly flawed cryptography
>>-- just use it
>> for Copy Protection
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Declan McCullagh writes:
>
>One of those -- and you can thank groups like ACM for this, if my
>legislative memory is correct -- explicitly permits encryption
>research. You can argue fairly persuasively that it's not broad
>enough, and certainly 2600 found in the D
David Jablon writes:
>
> Yet, on a sad note, public crypto research has to stop.
> One might think it could survive in purely academic circles.
> But no, you'd have to be a fool to criticise even an academic paper.
> Anybody, perhaps the resentful author, could co-opt the work for
> Copy P
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 10:53:02PM -0400, David Jablon wrote:
> With these great new laws, there is no longer any risk of being legally
> criticised for using even the most glaringly flawed cryptography -- just use it
> for Copy Protection, and TADA! Negative criticism magically disappears.
> Alm
At 07:13 PM 7/25/01 -0400, Matt Blaze wrote:
>(Fortunately, as far as I know WEP isn't used for copy protection,
>so it's still legal to disseminate and traffic in this kind
>of information...)
>
>-matt
A strange thought,
With these great new laws, there is no longer any risk of being legally
cr
11 matches
Mail list logo
